Loading...
PC Minutes 1998-12-01ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 1, 1998 The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Chair Lubin presiding. Present are Commissioners Parker, Greene and Keen. Commissioner Haney is absent. Also in attendance are Community Development Director Jim Hamilton, Contract Planner Tom Buford and Senior Consultant Engineer Craig Campbell. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS -None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS Letter from John Harrison dated November 10, 1998, including photographs, regarding the proposed road at the eastern base of Equestrian Way and Noyes Road. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 98 -565 APPROVAL TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF 27,350 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL AND COMMERCIAL OFFICE SPACE; APPLICANT: ROBERT ANDERSON; LOCATION: 200 STATION WAY Associate Planner Tom Buford reviewed the staff report dated December 1, 1998. He reviewed history of the project and prior reviews before the Commission. He noted that the applicant is requesting approval to develop Lot 3 of the Village Creek Plaza with four buildings totaling 27,350 square feet. Mr. Buford listed major concerns at this time are parking, access and loading, and landscaping issues. He advised that the revised plans were reviewed by the Staff Advisory Committee on November 17, 1998, and by the Architectural Advisory Committee on May 4, 1998. A letter from Brad Anderson, dated November 20, 1998 was the only written communication received in terms of public comments. Mr. Buford advised that environmental review was a mitigated negative declaration and the comment period closed at 5:00 P.M. today, with no comments being received. He stated it is staff's recommendation to deny the project based on the deficiencies identified on Page 2 _of the staff report. In response to Commissioner Greene's question regarding drainage, Mr. Buford advised that it is his understanding that the natural drainage on the site is to the south to the CaI Trans drainage ditch. The attempts by the applicant to obtain approval and consent from CaI Trans to accept drainage from the improved site have been unsuccessful. The CC &R's for the project, Page 7, indicates that an easement for drainage purposes was created over portions of Parcels 1 and 2 as necessary "..to accommodate the natural storm channel flow within the shopping center...". Staff's concern is that the natural storm channel flow is to the south; not to the northwest, and if the drainage is modified to send it to the northwest, there may be a dispute created with regard to the obligation to accept the drainage at that point. He stated that, from staff's perspective, it makes the most sense to have the drainage directed to the Cal Trans drainage ditch as proposed by the applicant. There doesn't appear to be any sound reason why Cal Trans would not accept the drainage, however, they have not done so to date. Staff is also aware that there have been continuing concerns within the project with regard to approval of Parcel 3, and a primary concern is to have a project approved when there may be a dispute somewhere down the line, and drainage may not be feasible to run in that direction without some sort of legal action. The other aspect of drainage is adequacy of the drainage facilities on the site Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 2 December 1, 1998 at Parcel 2 to accept the drainage from Parcel 3. This has been a concern raised by Public Works, and it has not been demonstrated to their satisfaction that it is adequate to handle the drainage. With regard to the plan utilizing off -site relocation of a parking lot curb to allow additional space for loading and turning, Mr. Buford pointed out that the site is on Parcel 2. The applicant has indicated he has the right to do that work based on language in the CC &R's. He commented that staff is not aware of a consent being given by the owner of Parcel 2 to allow that work being done, and staff has not been satisfied that the applicant can show clearly that he has the right to go on to Parcel 2 and do the work. Commissioner Parker commented with regard to the Negative Declaration, No. 8, stating that "A light source is potentially significant unless mitigated ". She pointed out that there was no mitigation measure listed. Community Development Director Hamilton advised it should have been listed as a mitigation measure to comply with the City Development Standards regarding Tight fixtures, cut -off shields, etc., and that can be added at this time. Commissioner Keen commented regarding the sidewalk along the front of the property, stating it is his understanding that is going to be replaced with standard City sidewalks. Senior Consultant Engineer Craig Campbell explained the proposal is that the sidewalk on the frontage of this project would be removed and a full sidewalk would be constructed on the other side of the street. The theory was that would provide a continuous sidewalk all on one side of the street instead of a sidewalk that goes half way down one side of the street and then crosses and continues on the other side of the street. Relating to that, Mr. Campbell advised he has reviewed the documents and found that the right of way does exist and he has contacted some of the owners who have indicated some . concerns on their part with that idea. Chair Lubin announced this item is a continued public hearing and invited the applicant to make his presentation. Brad Anderson, representing the applicant, addressed various issues listed in the staff report with regard to drainage, parking, loading docks, sidewalks, setback requirements, aesthetics regarding the metal roof and view of the back side of the building from the freeway. With regard to density of the project, Mr. Anderson pointed out that the Code allows for up to 45% coverage, and this project is well below the allowable limit. With regard to landscaping, Mr. Anderson advised they are providing landscaping consistent with the existing development and the existing shopping center that is there, and as he expressed to the Planning Commission last month, the applicant would do whatever needs to be done as a condition of the project with regard to landscaping. Commissioner Parker questioned the usability of the six parking spaces in front of Building #4 stating she personally does not believe those spaces will be workable. Mr. Anderson stated he believes the spaces will be useable and they do meet the development standards of the City. Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 3 December 1, 1998 Mr. Anderson stated that the applicant wants to move on with this project and get it built. It is their feeling that the project should not be denied on staff's recommendation because they have not provided a compelling argument. Therefore, they are requesting that the project be approved and move forward through the permit process, where a lot of these concerns can be addressed including the drainage, the landscaping and the lighting issues. Mike Miner, Co -owner of Miner's Hardware, stated that tonight is the first time he had heard that the drainage was planned to go through Parcel 2. He advised that last winter during the storms, even though they were only getting drainage from that one section, both Kennedy Nautilus and Roger Dunn experienced flooding on two occasions, and they have pretty strong feelings about the drainage problem. He stated the curb and the sidewalk issue, and the loss of parking are issues that have been going on and on, and now the developer is saying those issues can be solved in the construction process as we go along. Mike Mullahey, Mullahev Ford, stated he had just this afternoon heard about the proposal for the sidewalk and he doesn't like the idea. He stated they are extremely constrained for space right now, and the particular part they are talking about putting a sidewalk on represents about 25 to 30 spaces where they park their new vehicles, and this proposal would be a step in the wrong direction for them. His request to the Commission was to somehow keep the sidewalk on the other side of the street. In response to Commissioner Greene's question regarding ownership of that property, Mr. Mullahey stated the property is owned by his family and they would not choose to put a sidewalk on the property. Anthony Diaz, stated he owns one of the businesses in the shopping center, noting that there are a lot of seniors that come into the center and the parking is really beneficial for them because of the easy access. He stated he is concerned that the parking spaces in his section will be used for other businesses, and it would be harder for his customers to find parking close to his business. Hearing no further comments from the audience, Chair Lubin closed the public hearing and reserved further comments to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Greene stated notwithstanding the merits the project has and the need for the Village to continue to develop retail and office space facilities, he cannot in good conscience go forward with the project in view of the strong and valid objections raised by the City staff. He commented that staff doesn't often raise these kinds of objections and when they do, he tries to pay careful attention to them. Commissioner Parker stated at this point there are issues that have come back again and again; they are the same issues and they still need to be addressed. She commented that there are many issues involved and many of them were concerns when the applicant first brought the project to the Commission a year ago. They haven't been solved in a year's time, and it seems unlikely that all of a sudden during construction, they are going to be taken care of. She stated her concerns that lighting remains a problem, parking remains a big problem, the ramp is a problem, and drainage may or may not be a problem, depending on what can be worked out. Also, Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 4 December 1, 1998 the sidewalk may or may not be a problem depending upon what can be worked out, and since Mr. Mullahey's testimony, this becomes a whole different issue. She commented she would like to see the project back here in a month if concerns could be worked out, and she would hate to see it thrown aside because of issues that she feels could still be worked out. Commissioner Keen stated he believes the two loading docks are necessary because the project is strung out, however, he didn't think they needed to be as drastic because, in his opinion, the use will be mostly office space. He further stated he does have a problem with the sidewalk situation because there needs to be a sidewalk on one side of the street or the other as far into the project as possible to Fair Oaks Avenue. He also commented regarding an issue that was brought up sometime ago referring to stamped concrete crosswalks. He stated he has observed people in wheelchairs having a difficult time trying to cross that type of walk. He further stated he has a problem regarding the drainage going into the other property as far as the CC &R's are concerned. Also, he stated that the grading plan needs to be established before plan check. Regarding landscaping, Commissioner Keen stated if it becomes necessary, he would be in favor of eliminating some landscaping on the front property line to get a sidewalk in there. Chair Lubin stated, in his opinion, the project is acceptable according to Code; the size of the project is acceptable and it is a good project. The items listed by staff are of a semi -minor nature and can be dealt with on an individual basis. He stated he prefers that the landscaping plan be contiguous with the existing project and doesn't believe the new code should be the requirement for landscaping, street tree easements, sidewalks, etc., because it puts a jog in the project and does not match. If a variance is necessary so that the project is contiguous and looks good then, in his opinion, that is acceptable. He commented that each item by itself is insignificant and can be mitigated in some form or another. He stated this project is continuously bumping heads with the other property owners and City staff, instead of resolving the issues. He noted the owners of Parcel 2 have to be dealt with in terms of water flow, parking and the curb issue on the loading dock. There are also property owners involved on the sidewalk issue. All of the issues are still pending and it is necessary that these be resolved before the City approves the project. With regard to the parking issue, Chair Lubin stated he doesn't think this issue is going to be resolved any time soon and, in his opinion, the Commission is going to have to take a stand one way or another at some point, and eventually the issue will have to be resolved by the property owners. There being no further comments, the following action was taken: RESOLUTION NO. 98 -1676 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 98 -565 APPLIED FOR BY ROBERT ANDERSON, LOCATED AT 200 STATION WAY (VILLAGE CREEK PLAZA) On motion by Commissioner Greene, seconded by Commissioner Parker, and by the Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 5 December 1, 1998 following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Greene, Parker and Lubin NOES: Commissioner Keen ABSENT: Commissioner Haney The foregoing resolution was adopted this 1 day of December 1998. Chair Lubin advised that this matter can be appealed to the City Council within 10 days. PUBLIC HEARING - PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM (PSP) CASE NO. 98 -128 AND VARIANCE CASE NO. 98 -212, APPLICANT: SIZZLER RESTAURANT; LOCATION: 1170 W. BRANCH STREET Community Development Director Hamilton reviewed the staff report dated December 1, 1998. He advised that the Sizzler site is located adjacent to the Five Cities Center. In 1986 the Sizzler received approvals from the Architectural Review Committee for the existing building and associated signs. Four signs were approved totaling approximately 145 square feet, and included a double -faced monument sign and three parapet mounted wall signs. Mr. Hamilton advised that the applicant is requesting a modification to the sign program; they would like to add an additional 32 square foot sign on the northeast facing elevation. As a result of the Five Cities Center, a redesign of the circulation and parking around this property necessitated that the existing monument sign be relocated. They are also planning to re -face all of the signs as part of a corporate identity change and they will be replacing the sign faces in each of the parapet mounted wall signs. Mr. Hamilton noted that under the current zoning ordinance, this project would not meet the standards .for .the number of wall signs. The monument. sign is conforming and does meet the current standards for size, height, location, etc. However, under the current ordinance, they would only be allowed two wall signs; they currently have three, and the additional sign would make four wall signs on the property. The sign ordinance requires before any additional signs can be approved where there are non- conforming signs, all signs must be brought into conformance with the City's Sign Ordinance or a Variance must be approved. In this case a Planned Sign Program and Variance have been applied for. He stated that the Architectural Advisory Committee has reviewed the project and have made their recommendation for approval to allow the additional sign and to approve the overall sign package establishing a Planned Sign Program for the Sizzler Restaurant. After a brief discussion between staff and the Commission, Chair Lubin opened the hearing for public comments. Richard Herman, Architect for the Project, stated that as Mr. Hamilton pointed out, they currently have more signs than would be allowed by the ordinance. He advised that owner has gone through a lot of negotiations with the developer of the center and a lot of consideration was given to design a way that the restaurant would look tied in with the center. One of the ways they came up with to try deal with this was to change the entry, however, it was determined that this would be economically Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 6 December 1, 1998 unfeasible. Another idea to make the restaurant look related to the center was to modify the look of the rear of the restaurant. The service entrance area was changed to make it look a lot more decorative, and also it is felt that the addition of the sign at the rear of the restaurant lets the rest of the people in the center know there is a restaurant there. He commented that one of the concerns expressed by the Architectural Advisory Committee was the visibility of this sign from the northwest behind Wal -Mart. He stated with all that will be going on in the center, such as lights, etc., he did not think the 32 square foot sign would have any significance from beyond the boundaries of the parking lot. Hearing no further comments from the audience, Chair Lubin closed the public hearing and restricted further comments to the Commission. Commissioner Keen stated he was over there last Sunday in the parking lot on the Wal -Mart side and it was his feeling that even though this is going to exceed the amount of signs that are allowed, that side of the building is so bleak, that this sign will enhance and improve the appearance of that side of the building. He stated he hesitates to approve this many signs, however, in this case is seems appropriate. Commissioner Parker agreed that side of the building would benefit by having a sign and it would help tie the building in to the Five Cities Center. She stated she does have a problem with adding an extra sign and she doesn't think four signs are necessary. She also doesn't feel it is necessary for Sizzler to have two signs on West Branch Street advertising the restaurant. She suggested one sign could be located on either the western side or the southern side, and they could choose to change one of those signs and put it towards the back of the building so people in the Five Cities Center could see there is a restaurant and where it is located. Commissioner Greene pointed out that the ground sign cannot be seen when traveling east on the freeway. heading towards the project, but you can see the parapet sign on the side of the building facing the Levitz store. He stated that normally he would have a concern about the proliferation of signs, but the ground sign is an identifying feature only for those who are essentially right next to it. He also agreed with Commissioner Keen that the back side of the building does need a sign because the Sizzler needs to be identified for people who are parked behind it and are patronizing the rest of the center. He stated he is prepared to support the applicant's application for a variance, and he is not sure that removing the parapet sign on the West Branch side of the building is necessarily going to make any significant difference in terms of aesthetic appearance. Chair Lubin stated he supports the additional signage and would support the resolution. He stated he looked at the site and agreed that the building needs something on the back, and since it is a small sign, it will not be visually obtrusive to the people across the way. He also commented that the Sizzler Restaurant has been there for a long time and, in his opinion, deserves the City's support. After a brief discussion, the following action was taken: Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 7 December 1, 1998 RESOLUTION NO. 98 -1677 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE SIZZLER PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM 98 -128 AND VARIANCE 98 -212 APPLIED FOR BY SIZZLER, INC., LOCATED AT 1170 WEST BRANCH STREET On motion by Commissioner Greene, seconded by Commissioner Keen, and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Keen, Greene and Lubin NOES: Commissioner Parker ABSENT: Commissioner Haney The foregoing resolution was adopted this 1s day of December 1998. PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE CASE NO. 98 -213, REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE ON A SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A GARAGE; APPLICANT: SUSAN P. FLORES; LOCATION: 529 E. BRANCH STREET Associate Planner Tom Buford reviewed the staff report. He advised that the applicant is seeking a variance to permit the construction of a garage, approximately 12' x 28' in size on the northeast portion of the lot. He stated that the applicant is requesting a variance from the interior side yard setback of 5', rear yard setback of 20' and minimum distance between buildings of 10'. The maximum permitted lot coverage is 40 %; the applicant's lot is approximately 4,000 square feet in area. The lot coverage for the residence and garage would total approximately 1,540 square feet for a lot coverage of 38.5 %. • Mr. Buford stated to the right of the proposed garage is a cement block retaining wall and a planter on the other side of the wall. There is also a fence or hedge along the wall, so there is an additional height along there between this property and the property to the east. He stated he spoke to Lori Quinn at 531 East Branch and she had expressed some concerns regarding Tight and drainage from the project. Also, Mr. Quinn expressed some concern that their home would be only 4-1/2 feet from the garage if it were constructed in this location. Mr. Buford advised some comments had been received regarding the residence at the rear of this property, and that residence has a deck which comes very close to the property line. Also, coming off the deck are some windows leading into one of the rooms of the home, and that would be fairly close to the rear lot line. Mr. Buford referred to the garage at the residence at 531 East Branch Street, stating it also appears to be at or very near the lot line. He commented that one the relevant issues for granting a variance are the privileges enjoyed by the surrounding properties. There is some relevance to the fact that the Tots at this end of the block are smaller than lots elsewhere. One of the concerns raised had to do with the type of construction to be used in the garage and concerns about fire safety. The type of construction materials regarding fire safety is normally determined by the Building Department at the time the building permit is issued. Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 8 December 1, 1998 After discussion between staff and the Commission, Chair Lubin opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to address the Planning Commission. Susan P. Flores, 529 East Branch Street, owner of the subject property, described the property, the plans for the proposed garage, and the location of retaining walls and planters on the property. She stated she had talked to the Building Department and was informed she will either have to put a concrete wall in, or a two hour fire. With regard to the house to the rear of her property, she advised the house is 6 feet behind the wall and the deck will be about even with the peak of the roof. The block wall that is back there has a fence on top and is approximately 8-1/2' high. She advised that the deck in the back actually sits above her and is above her retaining wall and fence, so there is no imposition on them whatsoever. There being no further comments from the audience, Chair Lubin closed the public hearing and restricted further comments to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Greene stated he was unable to visit the site, however, he believes the request has some merit but would feel more comfortable going to the site before making a decision. Commissioner Keen stated since the applicant is basically going to have a single car garage with a little work space, what would be the possibility of shortening the garage to the standard single car length and putting the extra length to the left, and it would possibly center in that space a little better. Ms. Flores stated if she were to extend as suggested, she would lose all aesthetics in the back there, and also the cost factor would be prohibitive. Commissioner Parker stated she has some real concerns about this request and cannot agree to this project the way it is set up without some kind of change. She commented, in her opinion, the close proximity to the building next door and the fact that it is someone's_ home, and the garage is going to be 3 feet from this home, is too close even with a two hour fire wall. She commented she did not have a problem with the zero lot line in the back, the height of the garage, or the 40% coverage, what she is worried about is the fire hazard and putting this garage so close to an existing home. Chair Lubin stated he likes the project, it is the only way to get a garage on the property, and if it is built to code the proper fire protection will be there. Hearing no further discussion, the following action was taken: RESOLUTION NO. 98 -1678 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING VARIANCE CASE NO. 98 -213 APPLIED FOR BY SUSAN P. FLORES AT 529 EAST BRANCH STREET On motion by Commissioner Keen, seconded by Commissioner Greene, and by the following roll call vote, to wit: Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 9 December 1, 1998 AYES: Commissioners Keen, Greene and Lubin NOES: Commissioner Parker ABSENT: Commissioner Haney The foregoing resolution was adopted this 1s day of December 1998. DISCUSSION ITEMS - None PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENTS Mr. Hamilton and Mr. Campbell briefly reviewed the issues referred to in the letter from John Harrison, dated November 10, 1998, regarding the proposed road at the eastern base of Equestrian Way and Noyes Road. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS AND FOLLOW -UP REPORTS Community Development Director Hamilton advised that the theater sign is going to be relocated on the property shortly. He noted the sign itself will not be changed and is only being relocated. Chair Lubin noted that there was a lot of discussion during the approval process of the Wal -Mart project sometime ago that Rancho Parkway would not be closed for any length of time, and it has now been dosed for a significant period of time. He asked when Rancho Parkway was scheduled to be re- opened. Senior Consultant Engineer Campbell advised he has the exact date of the re- opening in his office and would send Chair Lubin that information. Mr. Hamilton advised that the Rite -Aid CUP application will be coming before the Commission at their meeting of December 15; 1998 and possibly the Rodeo Heights EIR will be on the agenda for certification. In regards to the James Way Annexation, Mr. Hamilton advised that it is planned to hold a public hearing on the first meeting in January. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m. on motion by Commissioner Keen, seconded by Commissioner Greene, and unanimously carried. ATTEST: Pearl L. Phinney, Commission Cle AS TO CONTENT: Hamilton, AICP ommunity Development Director B.A/v/( 1 1